Best of 2011

I have selected about 50+ articles to highlight as the BEST OF 2011. There was no set criteria for the selections, but just the ones that jumped out at me as I scrolled through the the material that has been posted here over the past year. Enjoy...

BEST OF 2011

Oklahoma City Bombing Used FBI Explosives

There have been a number of cases to hit the mainstream media in recent years, of terror plots here in the United States that were supposedly foiled by the "diligent" efforts of the FBI and other law-enforcement. Each time though, it seems as if the plots were flimsy, the would-be terrorists incompetent, and the entire scheme orchestrated by the FBI rather than the alleged terrorists.

Often when I read these stories on the news, I can't help but feel like the FBI simply went out and recruited some jaded but otherwise harmless buffoons to take the fall in yet another headline-grabbing case in order to justify their own budgets, the ongoing war on terror, and generally as a propaganda tool to keep the American public on edge. To sell fear.

But aside from the ethical standpoint of wasting tax dollars to create crime where there is none, and sending otherwise innocent people to prison to make themselves look good, there is good reason for law-enforcement to stay well away from the line between undercover work and entrapment. That is, between investigating a criminal enterprise, and becoming the criminals themselves. Perhaps no better example could be made, than by this bombshell report from the American Free Press:

Attorney General Holder Tied to OKC Bombers

Eric Holder, current attorney general of the United States, managed an FBI operation that provided explosives to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols just prior to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, according to official documents released during the ongoing investigation into government foreknowledge of the supposed terrorist attack.

According to the documentation provided in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought against the Department of Justice by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue, the Oklahoma City bombing had aspects of being an FBI sting operation that went out of control. Holder had authorized the FBI to provide explosives to Nichols and McVeigh, then lost track of both the explosives and their targets. McVeigh went on to detonate some of the explosives outside the federal building, an act that was designed to help anti-terrorism legislation pass Congress. But an additional case of explosives was unaccounted for.

After the bombing, when the FBI learned the location of the explosives, Holder reportedly sent emails to FBI agents ordering them to recover the explosives before they could be found by some other branch of the government. FBI agents failed to spot the additional, unexploded explosives during an initial search of Nichols’s home and offered to spare him the death penalty if he would help them recover them.

The case of explosives was, however, recovered by another law enforcement agency and was later determined to have the incriminating fingerprints of two FBI agents, as well as fingerprints of McVeigh and Nichols.

Shortly after the bombing, Kenneth Trentadue, a government informant, was murdered in his prison cell. His family has been pursuing legal action against the federal government ever since.

In 2001, in a bid to avoid a full release of documents, the Federal Bureau of Prisons paid a settlement of $1.1 million to several members of Trentadue’s family, but his brother refused to drop the investigation and filed a FOIA lawsuit for the missing documents. That suit has been ongoing in the Salt Lake City federal courthouse.

So it seems that at the very least, the FBI provided material support to domestic terrorists. And not just material support, that they provided the actual bomb which was detonated in the largest terror attack America has ever known outside of 9/11. It really doesn't make any difference what reasons they had, or that they might claim that they were simply outwitted by McVeigh and Nichols. At the very least, this is the perfect example of why the FBI (and other law-enforcement) should not be in the business engaging in plots with domestic terrorists. Why would the FBI even take such a risk? To let the plot unfold far enough in order to secure a lengthy prison sentence? To reel in the big fish so to speak? I don't know about you, but I would much rather have seen McVeigh and Nichols brought in on some minor charges that would have only stuck them in prison for a few years, but would have also disrupted their scheme entirely and forever marked them as persons of interest to law enforcement. So did Eric Holder let all those people die gambling for a promotion? It certainly seems that may be true, or even the best-case scenario, given this new information.

A more sinister realization is that the entire attack may in fact have been a conspiracy entirely manufactured by our own government. A false-flag attack. That theory has more merit than most people would care to admit. In his book Others Unknown, Tim McVeigh's attorney goes into substantial detail about why he was convinced that there was a larger conspiracy surrounding the Oklahoma City Bombing, though he stops short of naming names or endorsing any one particular conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, he makes a compelling case that McVeigh actually played a small role in a much larger conspiracy, and was not the mastermind he has been made out to be.

There are many discrepancies in the case and the official account of what happened. Again though, the most chilling discoveries come when we are faced with evidence which shows that our own government is not only involved in the coverup of information (for "national security" reasons they would tell us) but that they actively participated in carrying out this plot to bomb the Murrah building. And that evidence goes well beyond this revelation that the FBI actually gave McVeigh and Nichols the explosives. The government's complicity appears to even go beyond that. Take this photo, for example:

That image is taken from several snapped by an aircraft pilot flying over an Army Camp just outside of Oklahoma City just days before the bombing. It begs the question, what would the Army be doing with a Ryder truck hidden behind a series of screens in a secure area? (See more pictures of the area here.) One might be able to chalk it up to a stunning coincidence, if it were not for the fact that there are other discrepancies regarding the story of the Ryder truck and McVeigh. 

You can read more about the questions which have been raised and never answered regarding the Oklahoma City bombing by visiting WhatReallyHappened.com among other material on the topic available across the web. But be warned, the government does not like people snooping around in their dirty laundry. People who have investigated the OKC bombing have been labeled terrorists at government Fusion Centers.

And finally, you can check out attorney Jesse Trentadue speaking with Alex Jones on Infowars.com.

Former CIA Spy's Message to You

USMC vs. NYPD

Rights vs. Privilege, What's the Difference?

Rights and privileges. The two words are not synonymous, yet it seems that most Americans today would be hard-pressed to explain the difference between the two. It's little wonder then that things are so bad in this country, when it's own people no longer understand the most basic and fundamental concepts which define us as a people in the first place. What is it that we shed blood to protect? What is it which protects us from having our blood shed on the swords of tyrants?

Rights.

So what exactly is a right? The legal dictionary at Law.com defines the word as follows:

1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal.

Okay, so who entitles us to our rights then? The word "entitlement" gives us the impression that rights are handed down from some sovereign, or perhaps divine authority.

In medieval Europe, only the King could own property. In turn, he could then share that property with whom he chose. It was therefore this human being, who ultimately defined the rights of all those who resided in his lands. It's no wonder why, through the ages, Kings have been revered as gods upon the earth. The righteous and the tyrants alike held this power over the people in their realm.

All of that suddenly changed, when a group of men rebelled against the concept of one man ruling over other men. Industrious men of the New World rebelled against their sovereign King, and declared their independence from him and his government.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
~Declaration of Independnce

These men founded a new nation, where rights would be shared equally among all men. Rights entitled by no one man but rather by nature and the divine, defined by a Constitution, and empowered by the consent of the governed. They formed a new government, where all men would be their own king, owing their destiny to no man. Each man a sovereign, free to choose his own destiny.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
~Preamble, United States Constitution

So now we see that while rights may actually have variable definitions throughout the world and throughout history, the definition has been made more exact in the United States of America, by the Founding Fathers of hte nation. Here, rights are ordained by nature and God, not by the men who have documented what those rights are. It is not even the government formed by We the People, which entitles us to the rights defined by the Constitution.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

A right is not something that can be changed, or taken away. A right is that which defines our very being, as an American, as a human beings. So let us compare that now, to the definition of privilege. What exactly is a privilege, and how dies it differ from a right as we explored above? Black's Law Dictionary defines the word privilege as follows:

privilege - 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty

So we see that the word privilege first requires a legal right, rather than a natural or divine right which was defined as "unalienable" and "self-evident" by the Founding Fathers when they declared Americans sovereigns and penned the Constitution. A legal right is a construct of men and government, not by nature and not by God. It is neither self-evident nor unalienable.

unalienable - incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

The Constitution secures your rights, it does not grant them or create them. It defines the framework in which law and government must confine itself within. The Constitution is not law itself, but the document which defines us as a people. It spells out the values which constitute America.

Statutes and laws on the other hand are privileges. They can be written, repealed, altered, transferred, applied selectively, irregularly, and arbitrarily based upon whatever criteria an authority self-validates. Rights cannot be affected in any such way. They are set in stone so to speak. Privileges can be extended to you or revoked from you, by authorities such as the government, police, your boss, your parents, your landlord, and so forth. Rights on the other hand, are a constant, that cannot be altered.

A privilege is created to give favor to a person or class of persons separate from all others. Of course, this then flies in the face of equality, to give some people certain privileges that other people do not enjoy. But it also means that such favor can be taken from you by that authority which granted it to you in the first place.

Let us take a police officer for example, since so often citizens tend to resent the privileges afforded them. A sworn police officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to perform certain duties of justice in accordance with those values. In exchange, he is afforded special privileges that the average citizen does not enjoy.

Chief among them, an exemption against prosecution for detaining a citizen. You, as a citizen, may arrest another citizen for a crime, but you must be certain that you are not committing a crime yourself by doing so. If it turns out that the person you detained was not in fact guilty of the crime you alleged, you would have actually then committed a slew of crimes yourself by defaming them and infringing upon their liberty. You can be charged with any number of crimes and face civil liability for denying the persons freedom of movement, kidnapping, making false and defamatory accusations, false arrest, and so forth.

A police officer on the other hand, can detain someone for the purposes of investigation for anywhere from 24 to 72 hours depending on what state you live in. After such time, the police then have to charge a person with an actual crime, or release their detainee. But even if it turns out that the person did not in fact commit any crime, and/or if they are exonerated at trial, the police officer still cannot be charged with any crime or civil penalty so long as the charge was based upon what the officer saw as reasonable evidence. Prosecuting attorneys are also afforded similar privilege as officers of the court.

The police officer can have that privilege revoked at any time a superior or judge deems appropriate, even after an arrest had been made. So let us make another example there, to see how having privileges rather than rights, can become a serious liability. A police officer makes an arrest and files a charge on a citizen, for what the officers states is reasonable suspicion and evidence. If, however, his superior views the arrest to not be reasonable, and does not believe that the officer truly believed the arrest was reasonable, his privilege can be revoked retro-actively and the officer can then be prosecuted for making a false arrest, dereliction of duty, civil rights violations, and so forth. On the one hand, this protects citizens to some degree, from police officers who may be inclined to make false arrests for any number of political, personal, or otherwise criminal reasons. But on the other hand, we also see how the arbitrary nature of the privilege might be misused, to coerce or blackmail police officers into cooperating with agendas of cronyism and even criminal enterprise within the system.

At this point, you the reader should see clearly that there is indeed a difference between rights and privileges. They are nearly complete opposites. Given a preference, I for one would much prefer rights over privileges too. I like to know where I stand, and not leave my fate in the hands of someone else or some other group of people who may or may not be looking out for my best interests, and regardless of their own intentions which may or may not be well-meaning.

There are so many examples that could be made of the differences between rights and privileges. Yet time and time again, we see lawmakers today blurring the two concepts, to the detriment of liberty. Society, being too busy working for their slave-wage or otherwise preoccupied with the many distractions put out there to dumb-down the population, are content with this blurring of the distinct meanings. Indeed in this day and age it takes little to sway the masses to not only accept the erosion of liberty, but to demand it with potent support of knee-jerk reactionary legislation of all sorts. But now dear reader, you are informed. You know the answer to the question put forth here to today. What is the difference between rights and privileges?

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
~Thomas Jefferson

For further insight, please enjoy any or all of the following material:

Arbitrary Arrests and the Rule of Law

Recap of Caylee's Law Controversey

Freedom a Threat to Police

Season of Treason (video)

And finally, here is part one of five for Michael Badnarik's lecture on Rights vs. Privileges:

EDIT:

His lecture was removed from YouTube. Here is another short brief by the same lecturer:



Here is a link to part 1 of 5 for another lecture he did on the topic... http://youtu.be/kjhkydPddEE
.

Man Nearly Blows His Head Off with Shotgun

Safety first.

Do You Have Facebook?

Also see:

Facebook Goes a Stop Too Far?
How Facebook Is Used to Change How You Think
CIA’s Facebook Knows Where You Go On the Web

Secret Revealed: How Facebook is Being Used to Change How You Think

Also check out this article:

Facebook Goes a Step Too Far?

Facebook Goes a Step Too Far?

For years, users have been concerned about privacy issues when dealing with Facebook. Everything from anyone who has "friended" you being able to see your info whether you accepted the friendship request or not, to Facebook deliberately making it difficult to understand exactly what your security and privacy options are, to Facebook violating their own policies themselves.

Now we are seeing the face of Facebook's newest evolution. More invasive and manipulative than ever. Now they will dictate to you what you are interested in, use peer pressure to solicit you on behalf of their sponsors, and more. All of these features are being billed as making it easier to use Facebook and to have a more fulfilling experience.

I can tell you personally that I have found the newest features annoying at best, and have seen a number of people close their accounts already for that reason alone. Has Facebook moved a bridge too far now, trying to reinvent the wheel, that they will now see their users jump ship in favor of Twitter, Google Plus, or other social media platforms?

I for one, am on the verge of closing my own account as well. Not only because I find the new interface clumsy, presumptuous, and about as uncomfortable as wet underwear, but because I see something much more insidious going on here. In the past, when I have voiced concerns about privacy and of "Big Brother" using Facebook as a massive datamine to keep tabs on as many people as possible, I have generally been laughed at and labeled as a paranoid Conspiracy Theorist. Clearly this information is being gathered, and is being shared with Facebook partners, so there is nothing that I have said which is un-true. All sort of information is in fact being collected on you and is being shared with their "partners" whether it be advertising companies, or law enforcement, and no doubt other organizations behind the scenes.

The real debate at this point seems to come with the whether or not privacy is even necessary. I had one friend actually un-friend me over the debate, when I tried to warn her of the perils of sharing too much info on Facebook. And I wasn't talking about what Facebook might use the info for either, but what other people like scam artists or burglars might glean from a person's status updates and so forth. How many of you folks out there use your baby's date of birth as a internet banking password, for example? How many of you tell all your most shady friends on Facebook, that you are not home, but miles away at the mall with an automatic location update sent through your phone that even tells who you are at the mall with? Yet my former "friend" saw no need for privacy and willingly shared all sorts of information openly on Facebook. Yet most of my friends who have jumped ship so far, have not done so out of privacy concerns, but simply out of the clumsiness of the new interface. Facebook is getting more information from you, while making it more difficult for you to access information other than what they shove in your face.

The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset has been a favorite philosophy of law-enforcement for years, particularly in the post-9/11 era, as the Orwellian police state comes into clear focus around us. And now, we have media, social, and direct peer pressure trying to convince us that privacy is not necessary, and even dangerous to society. My friends, that is downright Communist to give up your rights and your privacy for the benefit of the collective. It is also downright dangerous to the security of anything you own, to your freedom, even to your actual life itself. Okay, okay, maybe I am being paranoid. Read this though, and then tell me what you think...

1. You’re going to get a Timeline — a scrapbook of your life. In a complete overhaul of its ever-evolving profile page, Facebook is introducing Timeline. This is a stream of information about you — the photos you’ve posted, all your status updates, the apps you’ve used, even the places you’ve visited on a world map — that scrolls all the way back to your birth. It encourages you to post more stuff about your past, such as baby pictures, using Facebook as a scrapbook.

The further back in Timeline you go, the more Facebook will compress the information so that you’re only seeing the most interesting parts of your history. You can customize this by clicking on a star next to a status, say, or enlarging a picture.

Awww, isn't that cute? At the push of a button, someone will be able to know your entire life history, with the most important factors already sorted for them. Oh, but privacy really isn't all that important right? What could they possibly use that information for? If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear? Okay, well let's try this one on for size, and see what the "upshot" is...

5. You can watch TV and movies, listen to music, and read news with your friends — all within Facebook. Starting today, thanks to a whole bunch of partnerships, there are a lot more things you can do without ever having to leave Facebook. You can watch a show on Hulu, listen to a song on Spotify, or check out a story on Yahoo News (or Mashable, via the Washington Post‘s Social Read app). The ticker will tell you what your friends are watching, listening to or reading, allowing you to share the experience with them by clicking on a link.

The upshot: a brand-new kind of media-based peer pressure. On stage, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings — a launch partner — revealed that he had only just decided to watch Breaking Bad because Facebook’s Ticker told him a colleague was watching it. Netflix’s own algorithm had been recommending the show to him for years, but that was never reason enough for Hastings.

Now let that all sink in here for a minute. Information being collected on you, is being shared with Netflix. So what is to stop Facebook from sharing information with your insurance company, or a potential employer? Nothing to hide nothing to fear, right? Well also notice too that the information is being analyzed and coded into algorithms. Analyzing data about you that you don't even know about yourself. Sure that can be used to predict a movie you might be interested in, but it can also be used to predict if you might be a problem employee, or a risky driver, or a potential terrorist even if you don't know it yet. After all, the final punch in that paragraph was not what data they are collecting or who they are sharing it with, but how they may be using it to effectively brainwash you into doing exactly what they want you to do. In that case, through peer pressure. Is it really so much of a jump to think that they might use some other algorithms to find out exactly what buttons to push in you that might just make you a bona fide Manchurian Candidate, or to keep you home from that important vote, to convince you that this article I have written here is nothing but the ramblings of a lunatic?

This isn't imaginary, this isn't paranoia, this is what they are flat out telling us they are doing.The only question is, will this new move backfire?


The quotes in this article were taken from the piece posted at the following link, where much more info about the changes is available:

http://mashable.com/2011/09/22/facebook-changes-roundup/

If you have an opinion or comment that you would like to share, please come on over to the Echo Studio discussion forums:

www.stationsixunderground.net

PLEASE KEEP THIS TRUCK MOVING AND SHOW OUR DISLIKE!!!

─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ▄ ▌ ▐ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▌

─ ─ ─ ▄ ▄ █ █ ▌ █ ░ ♥ ░ CHANGE OUR FACE BOOK BACK ░░ ♥░ ░▐

▄ ▄ ▄ ▌ ▐ █ █ ▌ █ ░ ♥ ░ WE DON'T LIKE THIS LOOK ░░░░░ ♥░ ░▐

█ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▌ █ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▌

▀ (@) ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ (@)(@) ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ (@) ▀ ▘

TO ALL THOSE WHO HATE THIS NEW FACE BOOK...PLEASE REPOST

A Few Interesting Facts About Libya

-Two years prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda and offered to open up its weapons program to international inspection

- Following the attacks of 11 September, Gaddafi made one of the first, and firmest, denunciations of the Al-Qaeda bombers by any Muslim leader. Gaddafi also appeared on ABC for an open interview with George Stephanopoulos, a move that would have seemed unthinkable less than a decade earlier

- Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by US forces in 2003, Gaddafi announced that his nation had an active weapons of mass destruction program, but was willing to allow international inspectors into his country to observe and dismantle them

- In March 2004, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair became one of the first Western leaders in decades to visit Libya and publicly meet Gaddafi. Blair praised Gaddafi’s recent acts, and stated that he hoped Libya could now be a strong ally in the international War on Terrorism

- On 15 May 2006, the US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, once Gaddafi declared he was abandoning Libya’s weapons of mass destruction program. The State Department also said that Libya would be removed from the list of nations supporting terrorism

- In July 2007, French president Nicolas Sarkozy visited Libya and signed a number of bilateral and multilateral (EU) agreements with Gaddafi

- In September 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Libya and met with Gaddafi as part of a North African tour. This was the first visit to Libya by a US Secretary of State since 1953

Why are we in Libya?

 

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

The Wefare State: An Essay by James Keye

This article can be viewed at the original source by visiting this link:

http://inteldaily.com/2011/09/the-welfare-state/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+inteldaily%2Ffeeds+%28Inteldaily.com%29


The Welfare State

September 2, 2011

by James Keye

The Self-inflicted Wound Theory of state coddling of the poor, that they are robbed of their self-reliance by handouts, is not entirely incorrect, but only in very selected ways – which will be gotten to. The more important issues have gone, as is often the case, largely unrecognized. If poorer people and the rest of ordinary folk are to be self-reliant, take the bull by the horns and ‘make something of themselves,’ just what is it they are to make? What ‘bull’ is it that they are to take by the horns?

It is obvious that those who make the ‘state coddling’ argument are suggesting that the common person should take a mercantile position; they should look for those entrepreneurial opportunities offered in their communities and exploit them. In this way they are supposed to pull themselves out of poverty or at least climb up a bit from the lower rungs of the ladder, create employment for their fellows and supply goods and services to their neighborhoods and beyond.

There is, however, an important caveat: the entrepreneurial activities must be done by the rules and laws set down by ‘their betters’ and must, therefore, support the superstructure that depends in large part, for its power and wealth, on the common folk remaining powerless and poor. Most business building requires attachment to the banking system, meeting official standards and acceptance by some government authorization process – very often controlled by those already in the relevant businesses. The poor should become self-sufficient, but without actually gaining in the real power to control their own destiny because that would, of necessity, interfere with the elite’s control of their destiny: the poor and the ordinary do the work and the elite do the calculating – in large measure, calculating how to collect to their own uses as much from the work of the poor and ordinary as possible. The poor and ordinary may be encouraged to become entrepreneurial in work from which the elite also gain, but only rarely should they aspire to the calculating classes.

I am reminded of an article from Life Magazine, it must have been in the 1950s. (By way of context, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee had turned America into Paranoid Nation.) I remember being upset by the article, knowing that I was expected to see its protagonist as a hero, but was only able to see him as a man without feeling and a thief. It was supposed to represent the best of Americanism, to wit:

A successful businessman went out to live on the bum. Dressed appropriately, he moved into the hobo ‘towns’ and adopted the hobo life. This was not a story of growing empathy for and comprehension of, primarily, men ‘down on their luck;’ it was the story of ‘hobo makes good’ by applying the principles of self-reliant (anti-communist, thus anti-commons) thinking and practice. Our hero noticed that the hobos left messages, on the equivalent of bulletin boards in the hobo jungles, about where to get handouts and other services. He began to catalogue these messages; he reproduced the messages and began to sell them to the other hobos. I don’t remember the details anymore, but it is not unreasonable that he might have begun to pay small amounts to both collect the information and, subtly, inhibit its free posting.

The upshot was that our hero became hobo-wealthy selling information that was once, admittedly, inconsistent but free. He emerged from hobodom having proven the superiority of capitalism, that you just can’t keep a good capitalist down and that there was something degenerate about those ‘others’ who didn’t seize the opportunity to raise themselves out of their miserable circumstances. I remember seeing only a heartless thief taking information from the commons, hoarding it and selling what was once free. His claims of having improved the lives of the hobos by giving them a superior survival tool seemed nothing more than happy-talk drivel intended for the impressionable masses [1]. There was, at the time, a growing recognition among the elite that the people had to be moved away from the ‘common man’ spirit of the New Deal and WWII; and Life Magazine was doing its bit for the cause.

The great mass of people are not capitalists; they are not hoarders; they are unwilling to ‘buy low and sell high’ when it harms their fellows. A capitalist is some one who has collected wealth sufficiently, most often from the work of others, to use that wealth to gather more wealth by controlling the work of those others. This may be what we have become, but it is not where we began: The human animal is a cooperative species, the distribution of information, goods and services has been an essential survival behavior for the millions of years that our genus as been on the earth. This is our context, this is who we are.

But it can be said that, today, the great mass of people live in a capitalist system which means, referencing the above, that their world is controlled by capitalists. It is also true that the barriers to wealth are or have been lowered in capitalist systems for those who are willing, like the capitalist hobo, to violate human principles of cooperative life. And so, our underlying habits of interaction have been under great pressure for a long time.

It is becoming clear: the bull that is to be taken by the horns is our human collectivist nature, our cooperative spirit. Self-reliance is to be self-promotion over, rather than in support of, others. We are to make something new of ourselves; we are to make someone who sees other people’s work as a source from which to extract some gain; we are to see other people as consumers of information, goods or services that we have brought, using inventiveness, stealth, the laws or raw force, under our control. We are to see other human beings as a resource to be used for our own advantage.

Michael Dawson, proprietor of The Consumer Trap web site has been documenting this transition from human being to capitalist. Rather than attempt to replicate his good works, go there for multiple examples of this process in action. My concern is the process and its toll on both those people who are unable to fight off their species humanity and those who can.

The myriad forces that have moved us to our present madness include all the usual suspects: the various forms and distortions of competition created by the direct and indirect consequences of population increase; the qualities and quantities of power available to individuals and small groups allowed by technological developments; the special influence on the human peculiarity, consciousness order, by communication technology; the sheer magnitude of the abundance of which human collective action is capable, and the depths of deprivation we are willing to allow (or force) others to descend into.

The great mass of people feel these pressures as disconcerting currents and eddies as they ply their way in life traveling with the humanity that still remains in our communities and our cells. But the allure of abundance, the distortions of competition, the outsized powers of communication and direct force, all in a world of millions and billions of people, are taken up by a small percentage of people who are not as well formed as most, who give up the birthright of species humanity.

In a sane world the antisocial rich would be ostracized if they could not be persuaded to rejoin common society. The central value would be the wellbeing of community, not the accumulation of material goods for private and often damaging uses. The entire sophistry built to justify and glorify self-interest, material accumulation and antisocial behavior is deeply dishonest and flies in the face of the several million years of the development of instinctual intuitions and social habits of our genus.

The bright and shiny attract us to be sure, and the ease and the power to do just as we wish when we wish. But most of us outgrow such infantile motivations and become more farsighted and community oriented. The best and the brightest of us become good human beings just as one might expect. Jack Welch, Angela Braley, Hank Paulson, Herbert Fritch and some thousands of others like them are not the best and the brightest; their salient quality is the willingness to ignore their humanity and the value of life for immediate personal gain [2]. Such behaviors that we would not allow at table are glorified as exemplary – how crazy is that? “Isn’t is wonderful that Johnny is stealing food from his little brother? He is so talented!”

And so, with this context we return to the “coddled” poor. First and foremost, the accumulations of the rich are really the accumulations allowed by community order and infrastructure, created by the community as a whole from the community commons; the wealthy are the beneficiaries of prior human achievement and the willing and unwilling contributions of their contemporaries. That they have contrived ways to exclude a great many from the sharing in the abundance generated from the multitudes is their only real achievement. Payments to the poor are, in most cases, a government enforced sharing of what should have been theirs in the first place. The real question is not ‘should it be done’, but how best to fix a broken system in ways that cause as little distortion of natural human economics as possible.

An obvious solution would be for the social standard, enforced by the righteous indignation of the masses, to be that no one have a wealth accumulation in excess of about 3 to 10 times (the figure needs to be researched for efficacy) the average wealth of the poorest 20%. Such a political and economic condition would have to be come to by a variety of routes, political, social and revolutionary, and I am not suggesting that it would be easy or even possible. This is not a solution to our present issues, though it remains in my mind as a most effective eventual state that would contribute positively to many of our difficulties.

Once it is fully realized that the wealthy, even those with social responsibility, have acquired their abundance by fraudulently taking from the efforts of a great many and, without proper compensation, from an environment which ‘belongs’ to all life, then the question is not whether to have a welfare state, but how to organize a state in which the contributions of all the citizens are appreciated and compensated. This will be the topic of the next essay.

[1] It should be noted that there is an “ecology” to the sources of help. The distribution of information would adapt to the rates at which the help could be delivered. Spreading the information widely and rapidly would shift the patterns of attempted use and thus availability. While our hero may have ‘enriched’ himself, it was almost certainly done with some level of destruction to the informal delivery systems that helped out these men. But, when the goal is to exploit an opportunity, the consequences of the exploitation only create more opportunities; how lives are affected is not an important issue and only given lip-service.

[2] Just a few of the ‘billion dollar’ CEOs and related types. Google “highest paid CEOs” or some similar search to become really annoyed.

James Keye is the nom de plume of a biologist and psychologist who after discovering a mismatch between academe and himself went into private business for many years. His whole post-pubescent life has been focused on understanding at both the intellectual and personal levels what it is to be of the human species; he claims some success. Email him at:jkeye1632@gmail.com, or visit James’s website.

Also see:

Economic Bill of Rights (with video)

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

Libya: Libyan Rebels Are CIA Funded, al Qaeda Connected Murderers

This so called liberation of Libya is the EXACT opposite of what the corporate media is actually reporting.

Gaddafi's fall might allow al-Qaeda affiliates take over southern Libya: Analysts

The fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi might see the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorist groups filling up the void, US analysts have said.

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

Top Libyan Rebel Leader Has Deep Al Qaeda Ties

Abdel Hakim Belhadj, who leads the rebel forces in Tripoli, was a founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and is believed to have been close to bloodthirsty head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

EDIT (9/3/11) to add:

"Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989)." -USC § 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

Libyan Islamist Fighting Group, or LIFG (anti-Qadaffy forces)are listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department...

...This same faction is responsible for contributing more foreign fighters than any other country, to fight against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan...

...according to a study by West Point USMA.

Selective Attention Test

And now you have a clue why...

Texting and Driving Worse Than DWI

Women More Likely to Abuse, Study Says

Women more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as well as victims

Women are more likely than men to stalk, attack and psychologically abuse their partners, according to a University of Florida study that finds college women have a new view of the dating scene.


“We’re seeing women in relationships acting differently nowadays than we have in the past,” said Angela Gover, a UF criminologist who led the research. “The nature of criminality has been changing for females, and this change is reflected in intimate relationships as well.”


In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men. The students took selected liberal arts and sciences courses. Forty percent were men and 60 percent were women, reflecting the gender composition of these classes.


In a separate survey of 1,490 UF students, one quarter (25 percent) said they had been stalked during the past year and 7 percent reported engaging in stalking, of whom a majority (58 percent) were female.


Although women were the predominant abusers, they still made up the largest number of victims in both surveys, accounting for 70 percent of those being stalked, for example.


The reason more college men weren’t victims may be that women in the study did not exclusively date them, preferring men who had already graduated, not yet enrolled in college or chose not to attend college at all, Gover said. “It shows that students who are perpetrating these attacks aren’t just targeting other students on campus,” she said.


It also is possible that some of the physical attacks women claim they are responsible for are actually acts of self-defense, Gover added. “Maybe some of these women have been abused by their partner for some time and they’re finally fighting back,” she said.


Recent studies on domestic violence suggest that whereas in the past victims might have felt trapped in violent situations, today’s women are more likely to understand they have options instead of putting up with mistreatment, she said.


“I think we may also be seeing sort of a new dynamic in dating relationships in terms of women feeling more empowered,” she said. “They recognize they don’t have to be in a dating relationship forever. They can get out of it.”


Child abuse was the single biggest determining factor for men and women becoming perpetrators or victims of either dating violence or stalking, Gover said. Even if one never personally experienced abuse, witnessing violence between one’s parents as a child increased the likelihood of stalking or being stalked as a young adult and it made girls more susceptible to becoming victims of dating violence when they grew up, she said.


The survey found that men and women who were abused as children were 43 percent more likely than their peers who were not mistreated to perpetrate physical violence and 51 percent more likely to be victims of physical violence in a dating relationship. Violent acts included kicking or slapping, pushing or shoving, punching or hitting with a hand or object, slamming someone against a wall and using force to make a partner have sex, she said.


Sexual risk-taking – the age when survey respondents first had sex and the number of sexual partners in their lifetime – was another important risk factor, but surprisingly, attitudes toward women made no difference, said Gover, who did her research with Catherine Kaukinen, a University of South Carolina criminology professor, and Kathleen Fox, a UF graduate student in criminology. Some of the findings were presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting in November in Toronto.


The study also was among the first to look at psychological abuse. Examples included preventing partners from seeing family or friends, shouting at them and using threats to have sex. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported being psychologically abusive, and 52 percent said they were victims of this type of behavior. Women were more likely to be psychologically abusive, with 57 percent saying they were perpetrators versus 50 percent of males.


Shelley Serdahely, executive director of Men Stopping Violence, in Decatur, Ga., questions the validity of studies showing women are more violent. “Women might be more likely to get frustrated because men are not taught how to be active listeners and women feel like they are not being heard,” she said. “Often women are more emotional because the relationship matters a lot to them, and while that may come out in a push or a shove or a grab, all of which are considered dating violence, it doesn’t have the effect of intimidating the man.”


Source: University of Florida


http://www.physorg.com/news72113800.html

6 Completely Legal Ways The Cops Can Screw You

I get into a lot of debates with people about why I am no fan at all of the police. No matter how many videos you show someone of the police beating a homeless man to death or articles about them cutting off bed-ridden granny's oxygen before tasing the shit out her, there are always the same generic replies. That cops are "just people" too, or that these are "isolated" incidents, to not let "one bad apple" spoil the bunch. All well and good until your wife calls the police for help and winds up being arrested and stripped naked in front a few few male deputies I suppose.



As it turns out, what police did there was perfectly legal. The departmental policy does forbid opposite-sex strip-searches, however, this was not classified as a strip-search. They were putting her on suicide watch for replying "now, or ever?" when asked about thoughts of suicide.

So yes, maybe the cops really are just people too. Which makes it all that much more important to not give police the power to pull crap like this in the first place. I don't "hate" the police as individuals, I hate the very institution itself as it stands today. Aside from the thousands upon thousands of supposedly isolated incidents where the police themselves are in fact committing actual crimes while in uniform, blatantly violating the public trust and their authority, it is now the very institution itself which legally violates the liberty of innocent citizens. It is not enough to have done nothing wrong. The police can still screw you over in a number of ways, which are all completely legal. And that my friends, is why I hate police. Not because I have some leftover teenage angst against authority figures, but because we have all become second-rate citizens who must bow before the tyranny and oppression of the police-state.

Let's go ahead now and have a look at this article put out by Cracked.com :

6 Completely Legal Ways The Cops Can Screw You

We are so lucky to be living in an era of law when it's no longer common for, say, suspects to be interrogated with live cobras tied to the ends of nightsticks. Unfortunately, there are still many colorful ways the police can royally screw you while Lady Justice shrugs.

For instance, you might be surprised to learn that right now in the U.S., it's actually legal for the cops to...

#6. Steal Your Stuff

Imagine you had your car stolen, but then fortune smiles upon you and the cops find it after the thief used it to smuggle 200 pounds of cocaine across the border, running over 30 children in the process while sexually assaulting the car itself.

You realize you're going to need to get all of its fluids replaced from a mechanic with a soft voice and gentle hands, but you still want it back, because hey, it's your car, right?

Yeeeah, there's some bad news: It has been sold to buy a new espresso machine for the station's break room.
It's called civil asset forfeiture. You probably already have heard of something like this, where the police get to seize the car and house of some drug kingpin and stick the money in the department's budget (that's criminal forfeiture).

But then there's this loophole where the police can seize anything they suspect has been used in a crime, even if it doesn't belong to the criminal, and even if there hasn't been a conviction.

"Let's take the jet. Those bootlegged DVDs from China had to get here somehow."

Then if you, as the actual owner of the goods, try to challenge it, the burden of proof is on you to prove you didn't know it was going to be used in a crime. That's civil forfeiture.

For the police, there is no legal requirement to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that, say, your TV set was once used by a ring of Dutch pedophiles to view kiddie porn. They can simply take it, without ever giving it back, even if they never formally charge anyone for a crime.

You're Shitting Me!

In 2004, Zaher El-Ali, a Jordanian immigrant and U.S. citizen, sold a truck to a man who agreed to pay for it in installments. Before he could finish the payments though, the man was arrested for drunk driving and the truck was seized. Seeing as the car still legally belonged to Zaher (he still had the title), he demanded it back. The police refused, and possibly laughed.

Because civil forfeitures are so simple, over 40 percent of police executives admitted their budgets depend on cash from them. That means each year, those stations have a quota of forfeitures to fill and technically there is really no stopping them from filling it with YOUR Xbox.

I don't know about you guys, but to me that sounds a lot like leaving a fox guarding a hen house. Not only "can" they do this, but police departments actually have to do this in order to get the funding for shit like tasers and SWAT teams, yeah and coffee makers for the break room.

"Its not like I was pointing a gun at your head."

I am not going to quote their entire article here, but I'll do a little point by point supplemental to add a little more to what they said, as a read-along. Next on their list was...

#5. Guess Your Car's Speed and Ticket You For It

Not only are some police officers supposedly "trained" to be their very own speed-enforcement radar without need of the actual equipment, saving money for coffee-makers instead, but here's another little tidbit they didn't bring up there in the Cracked article. You can also be ticketed for doing the speed limit. You could be doing exactly 40 mph in a 40 mph zone, and a cop can still pull you and give you a ticket for "unsafe speed" if he personally deems the road conditions to not be suitable to travel at 40 mph in your vehicle. Maybe because your vehicle is larger than most, traffic is too dense, roads are wet, it's a little foggy, or whatever else the cop wants to make up.

Next...

#4. Arrest You For Drinking in a Bar

Cracked did a pretty good job explaining that one. Bu8t also keep in mind too, that you can be arrested for DWI too, even if you are not driving. It used to be, that as long as you did not have the key in the ignition, you were safe to go sleep in off in the parking lot. Not anymore. There have been a number of people arrested and convicted for sleeping in the back seat with keys in their pocket. Even defense attorneys who would try to argue that you did not nor had any intention of driving drunk, call the proposition "iffy."

#3. Arrest You For Filming Them

As pointed out in the Cracked article, you can be arrested for filming police. Sometimes even in places where filming police is not explicitly illegal too, so just because you don't live in one of the 12 states where it is illegal to film cops, don't think you are safe.



Also, be sure to check out these two related articles:

Rochester police swarm neighborhood...

Technolgy and police hypocrisy

Now, on to...

#2. Book You For Carrying Condoms

Well, Cracked covered that one pretty well, so let's move on to...

#1. Steal Your Identity

As if the hypocrisy alone weren't enough, the Cracked article doesn't really get into the inherent dangers to using someonelse's identity. First, we have to "trust" that the undercover cop won't go out and run up a nice tab on your credit to pay for tranny hookers in Reno. Even with their best intentions, it doesn't take much to imagine how some administrative slip-up could royally fuck your credit up for years to come. But better that than say, having some hitman for Columbian drug lords show up at your house and set your family on fire. After all, these cops are setting out to create some animosity, using YOUR name. Not hard to imagine that some people might be pissed off enough to come looking for John and Jane Piglover SS #'s 123-45-6789 and 987-65-4321 from Suckerpunch Way, Cleveland, Ohio.

UF student 'Googled' self and didn't like what he found: MyFoxORLANDO.com

LBJ behind plot to kill JFK? Down the Rabbit Hole...

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 is the subject of what is probably the single most talked about conspiracy-theory in American history. The official story still stands that he was murdered by lone-gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, but today even folks who will roll their eyes at most discussion of conspiracy-theory topics would probably admit that even they do not buy that story entirely. Although there are actually many varying and interlacing theories surrounding the death of the popular American President, one theory seems to have gained some real traction in the past decade or so, culminating now with this bombshell revelation...

Explosive Jackie O tapes 'reveal how she believed Lyndon B Johnson killed JFK and had affair with movie star'

• She will allegedly reveal affair with actor William Holden
• Believed Vice-President Johnson was behind husband's assassination

Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.

The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.

She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald – long claimed to have been a lone assassin – merely part of a much larger conspiracy.

Texas-born Mr Johnson, who served as the state’s governor and senator, completed Mr Kennedy’s term and went on to be elected president in his own right.

The tapes were recorded with leading historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr within months of the assassination on November 22, 1963, and had been sealed in a vault at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

Get the full article at this link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023418/Jackie-O-tapes-reveal-JFKs-affairs-believed-death.html

This is a general description of the theory that JFK's vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the assassination, taken from a Wikipedia article on the subject:

In 2003, researcher Barr McClellan published the book, Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K..^[100] McClellan claims that Lyndon Johnson, motivated by the fear of being dropped from the Kennedy ticket in 1964 and the need to cover up various scandals, masterminded Kennedy's assassination with the help of his friend attorney Edwardo Clark. The book suggests that a smudged partial fingerprint from the sniper's nest likely belonged to Johnson's associate Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, and that Mac Wallace was therefore the assassin. The book further claims that the killing of Kennedy was paid for by oil magnates including Clint Murchison and H. L. Hunt. McClellan's book subsequently became the subject of an episode of Nigel Turner's ongoing documentary television series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. The episode, entitled "The Guilty Men", drew widespread condemnation from both the Johnson family and President Johnson's former aides following its airing on The History Channel, which subsequently agreed not to air the episode in the future.^[101]

Madeleine D. Brown, who was an alleged mistress of Johnson, has also implicated him in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. In 1997, Brown alleged that Johnson, along with H. L. Hunt, had begun planning Kennedy's demise as early as 1960. Brown claimed that by its fruition in 1963 the conspiracy involved dozens of persons including the leadership of the FBI and the Mafia as well as well-known politicians and journalists.^[102] In the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Brown and a former employee of Clint Murchison both placed J. Edgar Hoover and Johnson at a dinner at Murchison's mansion shortly before the assassination. Brown claimed in the documentary that Johnson told her after the party that the Kennedys "will never embarrass me again".^{[citation needed]} Similar suspicions are voiced by a number of LBJ associates, including Brown, in their own words in the 2006 documentary Evidence of Revision.^{[citation needed]}

Johnson was also accused of complicity in the assassination by former CIA agent and Watergate figure E. Howard Hunt.^[103]

Another, more in-depth but incomplete article can be found at this link:

http://www.reformation.org/president-lyndon-johnson.html

Below here are a few videos with descriptions related to the theory that LBJ was behind the assassination:

The night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls and organized crime kingpins - emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown that "those SOB's" would never embarrass him again. It's a jaw-dropping deposition and it's the biggest JFK smoking gun there is - despite the fact that it has received little media attention.

You can see her full 82-minute interview here at this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1929769365635576415

E. Howard Hunt, infamous "Watergate Plumber," provides his "deathbed confession" of his participation in the CIA and "Group 40" conspiracy, and names names!

More video of Mr. Hunt are also available there at YouTube.

Referring to Nixon`s escalation of the bombing campaign in the Vietnam War. Relates anecdote of George E Christian LBJ`s Press Secretary remark about LBJ`s involvement in the JFK assassination. Taken from the famous David Frost interview.

These revelations are certainly stunning, and chilling enough in their own right, but I don't think most of what is talked about above really goes far enough to explain the true depth of the conspiracy or the motivations behind it. There have always been men in government, covetous of power and fame, yet we are not plagued with assassinations of our political leaders here in the U.S. Certainly not so literally and brazenly anyhow. Nonetheless, what we have seen in most of the material above might lead us to conclude that an American President was murdered simply because he had a disgruntled troll for a vice-President.

This is really not much more than a dressed up "lone gunman" theory again though. Even though others did assist and conspire in the operation, it was all ultimately to serve the appetite of one power-hungry politician. There is too though, attached to the LBJ-theory, the possibility that he acted in cahoots with a cabal of Texas oil men who were pissed off that JFK planned to raise their taxes.

That would certainly make for a thicker plot, a more mutually beneficial conspiracy of dark forces. Yet my gut tells me this still really doesn't go far enough. Now granted, money can be a motivating factor for men of business, but again we don't see Presidents being assassinated regularly because of tax policy. Even if not just for the benefit of one usurper, it still seems unlikely that a small group of businessmen would conspire to launch a coup d'etat of the the United States government as a tax-evasion plot. Such an act has much more far-reaching implications than saving on your tax bill for a few years until another President gets into office.

This is not to say that they too, like Johnson were not also perhaps involved to some extent and acting in their own interests, but what could actually be so big and so powerful to be the driving force behind a plot to kill a sitting American President? Maybe JFK himself can give us some insight. Several versions of this video are available on YouTube, but this is a shorter version to cut right to the chase here...

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." ~Patrick Henry

These secret societies that Kennedy spoke of are far more powerful, with plots far more sinister than tax evasion. These are the people who manage, or mismanage the destiny of nations from behind the scenes. These are the men who have the means and the will to assassinate an American President if he acts contrary to their designs.

"No matter who they vote for, they always vote for us." ~Illuminati Proverb

So we should then ask ourselves, okay, what secret society are we talking about here then? The CIA or an element within the CIA? Perhaps. The CIA certainly has blood on their hands from many plots and hold many secrets, and there are many who believe that elements within the Agency saw JFK as an actual threat to America through his hesitancy to act decisively against Castro. There was certainly a divergence of opinion between the Administration and the Agency on how to handle Cuba, but CIA are not quite a secret society either. They are a government agency, an instrument of policy, not the writers of it. Some see them as a government unto themselves, but that could be debated. It is more likely that if the CIA were involved in the assassination, as many believe, then it was probably a sort of "rogue" element within the agency, that may have fed on a general feeling of dissent in the agency toward a President who was weak on Communism. But could this rogue element have been operating all along on behalf of a more genuine secret society to whom they owed their true allegiance? Certainly possible even if we don't see it as probable at first glance.

So again, we are back to asking ourselves, what secret society? A remnant faction of Nazis left over from WWII perhaps? The popular dumbed-down version of history accepted by many folks today is the vastly oversimplified notion that the Nazis were vanquished and ceased to exist as an entity with the fall of Berlin. Of course, over the years there have been some Nazi war criminals hunted down in order to face justice for their atrocities against humanity during the war, but that is a far cry from any true enduring society and network of Nazi ideology. Scratch the surface a little deeper though, and you will learn that the only Nazis who were hunted down, were ones of little value or who failed to cultivate a relationship with either the Americans or the Soviets. So called "former" Nazis, even if still fascists in heart and mind, were quickly assimilated as valuable assets to American technological programs such as rocketry in the quest to reach outer-space, as well as intelligence operations to fight the Communists, ostensibly.

The most extreme theory traces the assassination to a group in the Defense Department that emerged around Werner von Braun and the Nazi rocket scientists the US military imported into the country illegally and against specific orders, and installed at Huntsville, Alabama at the end of WWII-the famous Operation Paperclip.

During the same period, the US government also absorbed a network of Nazi spies headed by Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen. "The Gehlen Org" (as it came to be called) worked within the US government to promote Nazi aims and to protect and resettle Nazis from Europe. In fact, the CIA was built around the Gehlen Org.

This theory postulates an incredible degree of fascist corruption within the US intelligence services. But one person who lends it plausibility is Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman District Attorney Jim Garrison tried for conspiracy in 1968 (and failed to convict). An exit poll of the Shaw jury indicated that Garrison lost his case because he was unable to prove that Shaw was connected to the CIA.

But the year Shaw died ( 1974), a book by a highly placed CIA defector, Victor Marchetti, revealed that the CIA helped Shaw in his legal struggle with Garrison. This may explain why the governors of three states refused to honor Garrison's subpoenas.

Shaw's New Orleans-based International Trade Mart was connected to the shadowy European firm, Permindex, which was kicked out of France in 1962 on suspicion of involvement in the attempted assassination of French president Charles de Gaulle. Permindex's board of directors included von Braun and many well-known European fascists. Some experts say Permindex was a front for the postwar international Nazi underground known as the Odessa.

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5422594626052366128

Our sensibilities may reject the notion that the Nazis were still operating as a coherent entity and actually had anything at all to do with the JFK assassination, yet we do see their presence in our nation's most sensitive, most intimate operations. There is no reason to think that people bent on world domination and the destruction of America at one time, might not continue such an agenda with a plot to kill an American President. In the decades since then, an observant and objective student of American history might also discern the trend toward fascism in this country as well. Particularly in the last decade showing naked imperialistic aggression abroad, while locking down the "homeland" in a totalitarian police-state, making a mockery of the Constitution, the document which defines the true spirit of America.Without true respect for the principles of that document, we are the United States of America in name only.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined... The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

Today we also see what may be the death-throes of a terminally flawed economic system. We are certainly suffering a great deal under it's yolk, more and more each year. There is much that Americans should, but do not know about the Federal Reserve System and our debt-based economy. In truth, it is a vampiric method by which to extract the wealth of the nation and to consolidate it within the hands of a few select elite families such as the Rothschilds, while enslaving the former owners of any natural wealth to shackles of perpetual debt. This is a matter of simple arithmetic actually, and the implementation of the method is a matter of documented history. This is not conspiracy-theory, this is fact, and it makes no difference if the government is controlled by Republicans or Democrats. The Federal Reserve is a private company whom we as a nation borrow our very own money from, at interest, since 1913. It's a plan that would piss off Jesus Christ himself, and did in fact, causing him to have his only documented violent outburst when he upset the tables of the money-changers at the Temple for the sin of usury.

How does this tie in with the assassination of JFK you ask? Actually, this is the basis of yet another established conspiracy theory behind why he was killed.  Five months before his fateful ride in Dallas, the President issued Executive Order 11110.

"...to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption..."

This was a direct assault on the monopoly of the private Federal Reserve Bank over the issuance of United States currency and their ability to maintain control over the nation through control of our debt. JFK planned to issue zero-interest currency of value, backed in a tangible commodity, rather than based on a system of debt and interest. The silver certificates virtually ensured that there would be no national debt and the bank would be cut out of enormous financial profits. The millions that the Texas oilmen stood to lose was a mere pittance compared to what the international banking cartel stood to lose not only monetarily, but also in form of raw political and military power as well. Through what is essentially blackmail, the banking cartel uses control of our debt in order to influence politics and to even use our military to do their bidding, whether it be to enforce their position in other countries where they already control central banks, or simply to expand their monetary empire with brute force. This was done in Iraq, and is being done now in Libya.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." ~Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Is there any proof that the Federal Reserve Bank had anything to do with the assassination? Of course not, and there probably never will be. Especially now that the public is being sold on the idea that it was LBJ and pretty much LBJ alone who plotted to kill JFK. He may be the man most directly responsible for putting the plot in motion, but there is little doubt that he, like every President since Kennedy, was beholden to the hidden elites. Take note too of LBJ's timely demise, as pointed out in one of the articles linked above. A man who knew too much. Also note too, that no President since the assassination has dared to move in any way to undermine the Fed and indeed today seem more bent than ever on driving our economy right into the ground.While the Johnson may have had the most to gain from Kennedy's death, it was certainly the Federal Reserve Bank stood to lose the most if that administration were not stopped dead in it's tracks.

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men´s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” ~Woodrow Wilson

While we still may not have all the pieces to the puzzle, a clear picture begins now to emerge. We have an international banking cartel dominated by the Rothschild family, a dynasty begun in Germany of the mid-1700's. Within a few decades the Illuminati secret society, who some believe is the the most secretive and powerful secret society in the world, was also founded in Germany. Others maintain that the Illuminati was already extinguished by the time another now famous, yet highly secretive and mysterious secret society was founded at Yale University in the 1830's, amid a fervor of anti-Masonic/secret-society sentiment in the United States.

The The Order of Scull and Bones was established when one co-founder returned from studying in Germany. It was reputed to be a chapter of a corps in a German University when first established. This is supported by information gleaned after a break-in to the sinister "tomb," the society's meeting hall, in 1876. Today, the Skull and Bones counts many of the most powerful leaders in politics, finance, media and industry as having been initiated into their order. Again we see a Germanic influence in the affairs of the power-elite, but like we speculated about the Nazis above, Skull and Bones is also said to have a powerful influence over the U.S. intelligence community, particularly CIA. It is also interesting to note that Boneseman McGeorge Bundy served as national security adviser to both JFK and LBJ. According to the Wikipedia entry linked there, "He is known primarily for his role in escalating the involvement of the United States in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations." Which is of course was the big money, military-industrialist complex agenda that another former President tried to warn us about.



Perhaps it is coincidence too that elite secret society shares the same skull and bones symbology as that of pirate ships in days of old who flew the Jolly Roger, yet it would appear that in some ways they fancy themselves as pirates of sorts through their practice of  "crooking," or looting from graves the skulls of people such as Geronimo, Pancho Villa, and Martin Van Buren. Could they also be point-men in the plundering of the nation's wealth by the supremely powerful banking cartel? Another famous representation of the skull and bones symbology was that of Death's Head, having a tradition going back again to Prussia of the 1700's, then on up to become the prominent symbol of the dreaded Nazi SS, particularly the SS-Totenkopfverbände who were responsible for administrating the concentration camps of the Third Reich and "The Final Solution."

There is yet another curious piece to this puzzle, again one of Germanic influence. This time, bringing us back again to the Nazis. While Obama is incessantly questioned about where he was born, it appears that there was another President who may not have been born in the United States, but instead was born in Germany and then subsequently adopted into a prestigious American family just before the outbreak of WWII. A family convicted of wrongdoing under the Trading With the Enemy Act during the war. There is a photo allegedly of this President as a boy, taken in the company of Martin Bormann, Josef Mengele and Otto Skorzeny who's names are now ubiquitous with Germany's Nazi regime. Also in the picture, Reinhard Gehlen who we mentioned above for his ties to post-war intelligence agency establishment. The claim that an American President was actually what amounts to a Nazi sleeper agent, born in Germany with a different surname, comes from the deathbed confessions of Otto Skorzeny and is supported by the photograph. We will show you that photo in a moment, but first, let's tie it all up together here now in one nice, neat, little package.

This same alleged German who became President of the United States also went to college at Yale, is a Bonesman, worked for the CIA becoming director, and although he can't seem to remember where he was on the day JFK was assassinated, we have this picture to remind him...

This is a snippet of a document that shows Bush was in the employ of the CIA at the time of the assassination. He denies this, claiming that he only ever worked for the CIA when appointed director:

The full memo is included in an article on the subject found at this link:

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm

This memo proves that Bush was in Texas the day Kennedy was killed:

That memo can be found included in another article on the matter at this link:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

And, as promised, here is the picture of what is believed to be George H.W. Bush as a boy, the year before Hitler invaded Poland launching WWII, and when the future American President was still known as George H. Scherff:

Deathbed confessions, photos support claims that George H. Scherf(f), Jr., was the 41st U.S. president

The Revelations of Otto Skorzeny, Part 1

The Revelations of Otto Skorzeny, Part 2

We also know that the Bush family, whether they were actually his blood kin or not, were involved with the the financial architects of the Nazi Party, and that they continued to do business with them even after Pearl Harbor.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor

Considering that the family played a key role in the financial architecture of one country, Nazi Germany, it is no stretch of the imagination to guess that they may also play a key role in the financial architecture of this country, which we have already shown to be little more than a plundering of the nation's wealth by a few powerful elite.

While we are at it, we might as well go ahead and point out too, that there are some serious coincidences that many believe show Bush was behind the attempted assassination of yet another President, this time while he himself was vice-President. Was he a conspirator in the JFK assassination, who then went on to try to do what LBJ had done, perhaps at the behest of the very same secret overlords? Was the attempt on his life enough to stop Reagan from making a challenge to the power of those hidden elites in some way?

"Bush Son Had Dinner Plans With Hinckley Brother Before Shooting" -Associated Press (March 31, 1981)

We know that Bush went on to become President anyway, followed then by Bush family friend Bill Clinton, and then later by Bush's son George W., who ushered in a new era of Nazi-esqe policy. Starting with the 9/11 attacks that have drawn comparisons to Hitler's staged Reichstag fire, to the trampling of liberty and freedom at home while practicing military imperialism abroad, to the use of terms like "homeland" and propagandized patriotism, the rapid and unprecedented expansion of domestic spying and national police agencies. Many of these programs continue to be expanded now too under President Obama, while the people are placated by rhetoric.

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

Has America become fascist? The 14 defining characteristics of fascism

Is this the true legacy of the JFK assassination? Was this the actual agenda envisioned by the highest-level conspirators when they set a selfish and power-hungry vice-President on his task? Was the assassination indeed a coup d'etat which opened the door for all this to happen, letting in the wolves of fascism. the looting of our nation's wealth? Was all of this what Kennedy intended to prevent, with his undermining of the Fed? Was this what he warned about in his enigmatic speech about secret societies? And if they got away with this, for all this time, what chance do we have now of ever changing the consequences of that fateful day in Dealy Plaza?

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future." ~Adolf Hitler